In opening the door to direct diplomacy with South Korea, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has raised some serious hope of peace talks actually happening, but also has some speculating that he’s deliberately trying to drive a wedge between the US and South Korean governments.
This assumption is based on South Korean President Moon’s outspoken support for talks, and unsurprisingly his quick welcome for Kim’s comments, coupled with President Trump’s overt hostility for anything that seems too much like diplomacy, means the two sides will argue about this overture.
This may well be the case, but the North Korean government hardly has excluded the US from possible diplomacy, and this talk of direct engagement with South Korea only came after several weeks of calls by North Korean and Russian officials for tripartite talks with the US failed to produce any measurable response.
President Moon has also been more than willing to navigate around President Trump’s position in trying to get talks going, so it’s perhaps unsurprising that, now that North Korea is more amenable to negotiations, the US may be cut out of the process.
Whether direct talks on the Korean Peninsula can actually accomplish anything is another matter, as North Korea’s primary goal is to remove the threat of a US attack, something South Korea can’t realistically offer them, and without which they’ll doubtless not consider disarmament.
“…as North Korea’s primary goal is to remove the threat of a US attack, something South Korea can’t realistically offer them,.. ”
Well, South Korea could tell the United States to get the hell out of South Korea, and leave the settlement of Korean Issues up to Koreans. They can’t screw it up any worse than it already is.
i honestly and sincerely hope North and South Korea can work out at least enough for the North Koreans to participate in the upcoming Winter and Para Olympics.
Who knows, the White House might decide to boycott The Games in protest.
They might kick the US out if it were in their financial best interest, but I doubt it is, not for the people in charge anyway. I’m sure the money flows as easily over there as it does here.
Just for fun I decided to look it up. I found that South Korea is nestled between Rwanda and Namibia on the Corruption index. Maybe someone else can pay them more and take them off our hands?
Heh….. i did not know that.
What’s the U.S.’ rating, and who’s it snuggled in between?
Sounds like a rational solution.
The corruption index is corrupt.
Why do You say that?
South Korea’s ruling class are used to letting Uncle Sugar minimize their costs of defense as they extract wealth from the populace. The whole country is a more successful version of Vietnam in that the scheme has held up for nearly 70 years instead of collapsing after only a couple of decades.
Interesting comment and perspective. i wonder ~ tho ~ if Viet Nam hasn’t turned out better than You suggest.
What’s different in and about Viet Nam today ~ as far as its integration into the global economic system and its role-playing in the global geopolitical theatre [Spratly Islands, and Etc] ~ than could have possibly been imagined [let alone successfully plotted] back just after Dien Bien Phu?
But the real question is: Exactly in defense against Whom and/or What is South Korea’s ruling class letting UncaS foot the bill for?
Maybe it’s time for the Korean People [specifically, those south of the DMZ] to have a government that will either: throw the Americans out of Korea, thereby letting the “Korea Problem” be dealt with directly by Koreans, or; be replaced by one that will.
I’m not sure what you mean by Viet Nam turning out “better.”
Best (except for anarchist revolution) would have been for France, the US, etc. and their pet South Viet Nam regime to abide by the Geneva Accords and have elections to reunite the country.
Worst would have been for the US and the South to “win” and keep Diem or one of his successors in power. Which is, effectively, what happened on the Korean peninsula when the ceasefire took effect and held for 60-odd years now.
What happened was something in the middle. After years of war and millions of deaths, the US pulled out, the corrupt southern regime fell, its kingpins fled to luxury retirement abroad with their loot, and while I carry no brief for the Communists, my guess is that the people of the south are doing better under that kind of kleptocracy than the kind the US supported.
When You say, Mr Knapp, that “I’m not sure what you mean by Viet Nam turning out ‘better,'” i think You may have answered Your own question, by agreeing with my assertion when You noted: “the people of the south are doing better under that kind of [communist] kleptocracy than the kind the US supported.”
And Why are they doing “better”? [Besides the ultimately primary fact that ~ for the first time from since 1945 and the war with France to 1979, and its latest open war with China ~ Viet Nam has not been at war, for almost 40 years.]
It is because they [like their brethren to the North] have, as i noted, been successfully integrated into the global economic system as a independent, sovereign nation. Which, as You will no doubt recall, was all that Ho Chi Minh and his Folks really wanted, in the first place, way back in 1945. Ho had in fact proposed essentially that as early as the Versailles Peace Conference in 1919.
Plus, at this point in the nature of the relationship between China and the US, Viet Nam will continue be a critical player in the geo-politics of the region; American warships will no doubt soon be stopping off for R&R, Etc, in Cam Ranh Bay, with cargo ships delivering arms, ammo, and the like to our new-found compeers on the South China Sea, even as other freighters bring back stuff for our Wal-Marts.
As regards Your assertion as to what would have been “Best” for Viet Nam; i disagree.
i’d say, rather, that “Best” would have been that the Geneva Accords were never necessary because the United States did not bankroll the French attempt to re-assert colonial control over Indochina, in the first place, and instead and fact offered Viet Nam, Cambodia, and Laos the same sort of resources for recovery and opportunities for a future provided to allied Europe, Germany, and Japan, in the second.
[SideNote: When You say “Best (except for anarchist revolution)… ,” can You cite one anarchist revolution that has ever succeeded beyond several days, weeks, or, at most months?]
As to Your “Worst” outcome [the US “winning”]: That was never even a possibility, given the nature of that war, of its combatants, and, particularly, of the causes for which each side fought.
To return to Your base assertion [that the people of Viet Nam are “doing better under that kind of {communist} kleptocracy than the kind the US supported”]: Wouldn’t it be nice if there was a real, global alternative for folks to embrace other than trying to figure out which kind of kleptocracy is the least bad?
—–
[SideNote: When You say “Best (except for anarchist revolution)… ,” can You cite one anarchist revolution that has ever succeeded beyond several days, weeks, or, at most months?]
—–
Yekaterinoslav, 1919-1922.
“Wouldn’t it be nice if there was a real, global alternative for folks to embrace other than trying to figure out which kind of kleptocracy is the least bad?”
Yes, it would. The only alternative to kleptocracy, apart from possibly some kind of panarchy, is anarchy.
Can You be a bit more specific than “Yekaterinoslav, 1919-1922”? Google searches are of little help in zeroing in on to what You refer. Was it in Russia? The Ukraine?
In any event: what’s Your working definition of “kleptocracy”? And, the same question for “panarchy.”
That is a word i never heard before. Thanks.
Yekaterinoslav was the area of Ukraine that the Makhnovist anarchists held and defended through most of the Russian civil war, until after the Whites had been defeated and the Reds suppressed them.
Kleptocracy is government based on theft. The most well-known current variant of it is the Westphalian Model nation-state.
Panarchy/panarchism is “a political philosophy that emphasizes each individual’s right to freely choose (join and leave) the jurisdiction of any governments they choose, without being forced to move from their current locale.” Too long to explain in a blog comment, but basically un-tethering government from geographical monopoly.
Thank You, Mr Knapp, for clarifying that. i know virtually nothing about the Russian Civil War, and this is a good place to start.
You cited Yekaterinoslav to be an [the?] example of an “anarchist revolution that has ever succeeded beyond several days, weeks, or, at most months.” i went no further in my Google hunt-n-gather than its entry on the “Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine,” so perhaps You can fill me in.
Did the folks living in the RIAU’s area of operation have any kind of working, functional Makhnovist [or any other] “government” that attended to “government business”? Or were they like folks living in today’s, say, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, the Congo, Mexico’s border with the U.S., etc? Did the RIAU [or anybody else] in the area do “government,” or just civil war? Or were they all living in some kind of anarchistic Utopia, without government, in any form, and getting along just fine til suppression?
Regardless, why and how were the Makhnovists successfully “suppressed”? Was it because they were anarchists confronting a very well resourced, organized, and led group of folks intent upon inflicting their view, vision, and version of The Future, at whatever the cost? That seems to be a chronic problem with anarchist movements throughout history, eh?
In any event: granting that Yekaterinoslav was an “anarchist revolution that…succeeded beyond several days, weeks, or, at most months” [in this case, a couple of years], can You cite any other “successes” [however defined] of anarchists?
In any event, i like Your definition of kleptocracy as “government by theft.” But, what other kind of government IS there? Or has there ever been? As You pointed out, the Westphalian Model nation-state is but the latest mutation [with “global government” coming up strong on the outside {see ps: below}], going all the way back to the beginnings, wherever. Involuntary seizure [in whatever form] of property [in whatever form] is theft.
However, if people need, want, and expect their governments [again, in whatever form, and at whatever level] to provide for ways and means to address and meet human needs and wants, then somebody is going to have to provide the resources to pay for all that.
Because governments can independently create no resources on its own, they can only either: tax [steal from the present]; and/or borrow [steal from the future]; and/or print money [steal from both] in order to actually pay for whatever it does, or is at least supposed to be doing, or at least claims that it is doing. Whatever the case, it is still theft.
However, that raises the same question: If people want their governments to do certain things, who is going to pay for it, and how?
One of the first questions that needs to be addressed is: Just what exactly SHOULD all those governments be doing? What is their actual, real function, purpose, and mission? And how does panarchy/panarchism fit into all this?
Thank You again for introducing me to that whole concept, let alone word. i’ve done some more hunting and gathering, and have found panarchism.org, and look forward to digging into it and where it will lead deeper. But let me throw an immediate question at You:
Under Your definition, Panarchy/panarchism is “a political philosophy that emphasizes each individual’s right to freely choose (join and leave) the jurisdiction of any governments they choose, without being forced to move from their current locale.” My question is: How literally am i to take this definition?
Let us suppose that You and i live on adjacent pieces of land, and have freely chosen to join, resource, establish, maintain, sustain, and support different “governments,” and thus be subject to the laws, rules, and regulations of our each and own, respective different governments. And, a disagreement [even after honest, sincere, and rational discussion; or even if nothing but rants, threats, and displays of force] ~ over exactly where those adjacent properties begin, end, and encompass ~ arises. And that this soon escalates into a situation fraught with the potential for confrontation, conflict, and even armed [or hopefully, at worst {and best,} courtroom] combat.
How would a panarchistic system of government function under these circumstances? You ~ as a citizen of Your government ~ have Your duly established and personally accepted laws, rules, regulations, processes, and procedures for dealing with this sort of thing. And i ~ as a similarly loyal citizen of My government ~ have those that are similarly duly mine. How does this play out under panarchy, in which government is “un-tetherd from geographical monopoly”?
As You noted: any answer to this question would be “too long to explain in a blog comment.” If You’re interested in continuing this conversation, my e~ is: jgmoebus@gmail.com . i’m a 71 year old retired US Army-type living in Sitka, AK, on the sailboat i brought up from San Francisco Bay five years ago. i Look forward to hearing from You.
Also, if You don’t mind my asking: Why and How did You end up as an antiwar.com Moderator?
jeff
ps: Wikipedia offers two other contexts for manifestations of “Panarchism” beyond the “Freely choosing government” model of de Puydt, etc: “Global society” and “Systems theory.” For me at this point, those two perspectives of “panarchy” hold a lot more potential for generating usefully fruitful thought and action in the real world than does it’s sly variation of mere Anarchy.
Jeff,
Good luck in your research . I’m not an expert on Yekaterinoslav or the Makhnovists. I was just responding to the success timeframe you posited.
I’m also not an expert on panarchism and am somewhat skeptical of how it would work myself. You do certainly put your finger on some of the most-cited possible problems with it. On the other hand, it seems to me that on a relatively small scale in an otherwise peaceful environment it could turn out a lot like, say, the Swiss canton system, only with the cantons not geographically boxed out and a confederation agreement handling external defense and settling of incompatibles.
It would be hard to do worse than the Westphalian nation-state, a model responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths in the last century alone.
Ahhh…. if only the “Real World” was run on “a relatively small scale in an otherwise peaceful environment,” eh?
It’s interesting that You refer to Switzerland and its “canton system”; altho i’m not sure i follow how the cantons are “boxed out.” And, unless i’m mistaken, the very basis, foundation, and existence of Switzerland ~ at the independent, sovereign nation-state level of Republic ~ is built, based, and bastilled upon the concept of a confederated coalition of similarly independent, sovereign, canton-state-level Republics.
As an Alaskan, i grow increasingly convinced that that is a very viable and doable future for Alaska: The Switzerland of The Arctic. Do You think Russia, China, and/or Canada would be interested in protecting the Nation of Alaska from the United States?
And, the only reason the pre-Westphalian nation- states didn’t kill as many as their current spawn is only because they didn’t have the technology. Had they had it, global overpopulation might not be quite the problem that it is at the moment.
Sorry, I forgot to answer this one:
“Also, if You don’t mind my asking: Why and How did You end up as an antiwar.com Moderator?”
I’ve been following Antiwar.com since about the time it opened up shop (I worked for a now-defunct web portal that they partnered with early on to get their material out to their initial audience, libertarians) and have known most of the principals here since maybe 2000 or so.
Circa 2008 (if I remember correctly), I happened to be talking with Angela Keaton and it came up that they needed a person to do some basic tasks — editing a letters column (that went away a few years ago — people prefer commenting these days), moderating comments, etc. I kind of assume they hired me in part because I refused to take as much money as they were offering, and in fact wanted to not take any money at all at the time. They insisted on paying me a little, and I appreciate it. I moderate comments, and post Antiwar.com links to some of the off-brand social media sites (Diaspora, Google Plus, Minds.com, Flipboard, Gab) each morning.
Given South Korea’s per capita Income and GDP, exactly how much wealth is South Korea’s ruling class “extracting from the populace”? As compared, say, to how much the US’s ruling class is extracting?
One can safely assume that N and S Korea do not want a nuclear war. We cannot posit the same about the Republicans in the US Congress and WH.
Unfortunately, the Republicans are not alone in their penchant for shedding other people’s blood. The Democrats have plenty of their own warmongers ensconced on and around Capitol Hill.
Kim will do what Trump wants because if we Attack N Korea China and Russia will attack us . This makes N Korea about as safe as anybody else . It all depends on weather Kim trusts China and Russia as much as Japan and South Korea trust us .
The USA cannot bear the idea of any country having peace talks with another it considers “an enemy”. The North and South are not separate peoples. The USA would love to ensure both were puppets of the USA, but never possible partners who could cooperate as they did a few years ago with the commercial zone (abandoned by US-supported, now cast aside by the voters, President Park Geun-Hye.) This is now being reconsidered since the election of Mr Moon.
This should be just fine if N and S Korea could get along It has been that United States acted as a wedge between N and S Korea . We don’t want to do that any more . The Trump administration wants to be friends to both Koreas . God bless Donald Trump and all of east and west Korea .
We should butt out and let the Koreas work it out.